Get the full story at Fort Bend Now:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/pages/full_story?article-School-District-Legal-Staff-Reviewing-Carreon-Candidacy-Flap%20=&hash=comments_54386&page_label=home&id=54386&widget=push&open=&#cb_post_comment_54386
Background:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/pages/full_story?article-Carreon-Told-He-Cannot-Be-On-Two-Ballots-At-Once%20=&page_label=full_story&id=54098&widget=push&open=&
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Local blog comments on this:
« Muckraker wrote on Saturday, Mar 22 at 03:15 PM »
TR,
Continue to share it here. This is still an open forum on community issues.
« TexasRose wrote on Saturday, Mar 22 at 09:54 AM »
Scratch that to FBCAD….he served on Sugar Land City Council. Just one fact to “special interest” we all were shut out from. FYI: our politically long running website closed down. It’s a wander I know this much.
;-)
« TexasRose wrote on Saturday, Mar 22 at 09:32 AM »
Hmm, “conflicts of interests” can ya say Hermann?
Back in our territory “SP” Stan Prince, controversy surrounded this guy… seems his MUD outcasted & outlasted his Trustee ballot for the school board remember?
« Muckraker wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 02:39 PM »
BTW get the background on all these shenanigans:
Council candidates versus the special interest in MC
« Muckraker wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 02:35 PM »
I think SLW is a bit confused on all this. You are also correct “getreal”. Dan also dropped out of the race and endorsed Reitz. All of these Sienna candidates are linked back to the PR dept. people for that community/developer. If Carreon is forced out of the FBISD race by county officials operating through the legal vendor for that water board it will insure that one subdivision has at least 2 seats with Dan’s neighbor (Reynolds) being in the only contested race for a 3rd SP position. How much you wanna bet the fix is in on all three of these spots. I bet it won’t be long before you see old Bev Carter endorse all three for the ad sales from that community in her paper. . .isn’t the realestate game a gas!
« HighTimes wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 01:01 PM »
StanPrince…right on buddy…right on.
« StanPrince wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 12:50 PM »
“As long as no pay was taken, I was told it was okay,” Carreon said. “I knew that when I was running for county commissioner. Since that was a paid position, it was only after I lost (the primary) that I signed up for the other two elections.”
“He also pointed out that U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is currently running for both President and re-election to his congressional seat. Both are paid positions.”
Go Rodrigo! If you were running for a position in which I could vote, you’d get mine. Both of ‘em!
« getreal wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 12:43 PM »
Can you say Daniel Mendez…lost last year to his buddy David Reitz and is back on the ballot…hmmmmmm
« getreal wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 12:42 PM »
I am for right…stop watching my lines and watch yours. I didn’t know contratulate was a word.
« Sugarlandwatch wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 12:39 PM »
YeahRight, you are contradicting yourself. First you contratulate Carreon then you ask who he is and then you tell him to go home. Make up your mind. Either you are for him or against him. Which one is it?
« YeahRight wrote on Friday, Mar 21 at 12:16 PM »
Carreon…congratulation…they can’t stop you. Your FBISD opponent ran last year and only received 500 votes. We need dedicated people who are visible…who is he anyway…he should just go back home…nobody has seen him participat in anything.
If voters let him win then 3 members on the board will live in Sienna an ETJ in our county…can you say SMD?
more:
Muckraker wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 02:35 PM »
“Carreon deserves his candidacy.”
Agreed….
Ck this out reformers
FBISDWatch has been notified and will contact other watch groups on this issue
Update: Mr. Carreon is in the process of contactin legal council for advice and possible action if the district moves forward on this and guarantees one neighborhood 2, possible 3 seats on the BOT…
« TexasRose wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 01:45 PM »
Now “Carry on”..
Carreon deserves his candidacy.
« TexasRose wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 01:42 PM »
SLAPP me and I’ll jerk you…..
« TexasRose wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 01:41 PM »
Truth is that’s where “they” fall short! I never fell down even once, I never slurred even once, I never had a chance to pick up my belongings (off the floor) even once (okay, only after calling it out to “their” attention 3 times!)
Go to the statute of my own limitations and jerk me again huh?
« TexasRose wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 01:37 PM »
Ha engaging 3 men against me? Come on!!! If only there was videotape!
« Muckraker wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 12:57 PM »
I remember a SLAPP-suit in an industry protection court-racket that produced similar outcomes for homeowners. It boiled down to an empty hand that was very costly to the targets but had NO teeth, as usual. We need to keep exposing these gamers for what they are, system manipulators who engage regularly in conflicts and public/taxpayer deception.
Thx TR!
Get more here-just click-
FortBendWeb.com
MissouriCityChatter
FBISDWatch Blog
« TexasRose wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 12:36 PM »
”..their is NO specific statute that states this scenario.”
Perspectively, just how many legal parties love to scare & manipulate using this ‘tactic’?
Let me guess. With my case, “resisting arrest” (falsely accused; therefore not applicable & dismissed) Why? I’ve stated this before on other threads, thus should only be taken literally, is the attempt in manipulating 14 cases..yet only 1 was manipulated to “apply”. Even then, it did not…The point is in the legal maneuvers to “mold” accordingly to fit their own structure. So yes Muck I believe you.
« Muckraker wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 12:04 PM »
Hey Mark, I have asked two county chairmen for two of the major parties and they have looked up the law and their is NO specific statute that states this case scenario. Additionally, the only closely related law says it must be stated. This particular case would have to be challenged in court and not left open to vendor attorneys for the school district or the water board to decide. Neithers business or meeting dates over-laps. The alternative scenario regarding 3 board members from 1 subdivision still under developer controll does however, IMO, represent a conflict and certainly not in the best interests of the 7th largest district in TX. Maybe someone needs a LAW against this type of manipulation. Maybe Single-member districts would have solved this apparent conflict, or do you like paying too much for land and having RECORD bond elections every other year as our superintendant has stated???
Other official conflicts by elected leaders never addressed
And so on and so forth!
« Muckraker wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 11:50 AM »
What the legal council is doing, IMO, is an attempt to force Carreon out of the FBISD race. This pressure is being most likely initiated at the county level via the special interest who want a guarantee of 2 school board members from one highly CONNECTED subdivision with a 3rd candidate coming from that community only having to defeat Ms. Caldwell for a block of voters from this one neighborhood. They could issue vote without much opposition and approve bond use and land sales for that community. That, for me, would present the GREATER conflict. Not if someone on a MUD or water board were serving in a much larger school district race that meets of separate nights.
This is by design folks as usual. This water-board once before tried to stop Mr. Carreon from filing to run as the residents attempt to take back control from the county-backed candidates in place, IMO, to make sure that the development companies needing the water in that area get it, rather than looking for a fair regional plan for all who currently live in those covered neighborhoods (some who have lived in that community for 20+ years).
I believe the earlier article also stated several examples of dual candidates (including Mr. Paul in CD-14). I wonder who is pulling the strings on this one? I guess they assume Mr. Carreon can not afford to wrap this up in litigation for years as many of the special interest candidates would do with adequate backing…
Happy voting folks and watch the man behind the curtain (with edc membership connections)...
Help stop the special interests manipulations of our elections!
« mark_mcgrath@comcast.net wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 11:49 AM »
Hey getreal….if it is ruled illegal, do you still think he should run for both positions.
« mark_mcgrath@comcast.net wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 11:49 AM »
Hey getreal….if it is ruled illegal, do you still think he should run for both positions.
« getreal wrote on Monday, Mar 24 at 11:35 AM »
I do not see the conflict of Carreon running for both offices at the same time,it’s not like he has won both races and is serving on the both of them at the same time.However I do feel that he should be allowed to run in both races and serve in the one that he wins.
If he wins both of them, then that is when he should make his choice on which to serve.
Until then leave him alone,and do not make this a discrimination issue.
I enjoyed the discussions at the hotel last night. I hope we see more of these.
Post a Comment